Polaroid x530 w/Foveon sensor will ship - finally.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by True211, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. True211

    True211 Guest

    True211, Feb 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Woodchuck Bill, Feb 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Just what the photographic world needs...more junky hardware.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 23, 2005
    #3
  4. True211

    ittsy Guest

    It will still be interesting to read the technical reviews.

    Rose Parchen
     
    ittsy, Feb 24, 2005
    #4
  5. It'll be interesting to see the "Bayer equivalency" for the x530. Reviews of
    the 3.4 Megapixel Sigma SD10 state that it compares to a 6 megapixel Bayer
    based D-SLR, in terms of resolution.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Feb 24, 2005
    #5
  6. If it has the Polaroid name attached and uses Foveon
    technology...really...who cares at this point?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 25, 2005
    #6
  7. True211

    The PhAnToM Guest

    Can someone again summarize why the lingering hatred of Foveon? Thanks.
     
    The PhAnToM, Feb 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Those of us who use Foveon sensor cameras quite like them. There's honest
    criticism of the sensor and then there's dishonest crtiticism from the likes
    of Randall and Steven Scharf who never used the camera. Sort of like
    telling someone how a steak tastes without ever tasting one for themselves.
    It's best to discount what they say and stick to the posts from those who
    are more objective even if they don't like the Foveon sensor.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Feb 26, 2005
    #8
  9. True211

    Larry Guest

    I wouldn't call it hatred, just a lack of repect for a good idea that didn't
    work, but still gets promoted and sold as if it did work.

    The photos from that sensor are pretty bad.
     
    Larry, Feb 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Thanks.

    There is no hatred.

    There was a lot of disappointment when the Sigma D-SLRs, produced
    relatively mediocre results compared to all other digital SLRs (and
    compared to many compact digital cameras for that matter). This has
    translated into healthy skepticism that the 1.5 megapixel sensor in the
    Polaroid x530 will produce good results (this camera is nearly a year
    late, with no explanation ever provided for the delay, making many
    people very nervous about it, but who knows, it could be a sleeper).

    What upset a lot of people about Foveon was how the 3.4 megapixel X10
    sensor somehow morphed into a 10.2 megapixel sensor. This stemmed from
    an attempt to re-define a pixel from a spatial input element into a
    photo-detector. Terms such as "pixel sensor" were invented, in an
    attempt to confuse the consumer. Foveon decided not to adhere to the
    JCIA GLA03 standard regarding the definition of a pixel, claiming that
    the standard did not adequately address X3 technology (it actually
    does). Fujitsu, who has a non-standard sensor design, takes great pains
    to be accurate in terms of the JCIA GLA03 standard, even noting the
    standard in their specifications (i.e. see
    "http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/f810/performance.html").

    Now we have the 1.5 megapixel Polaroid x530 being marketed as a 4.5
    megapixel camera. But what can WWL do, since if they tried marketing it
    as a 1.5 megapixel camera it would surely fail. This camera will likely
    be about as good as a current 3 megapixel compact camera, but it isn't
    3 megapixels either, it's a 1.5 megapixel, 4.5 megasensor camera. The
    problem is that many consumers look only at megapixels, just as when
    buying computers many look only at megahertz; this is unfortunate, but
    it requires education of the consumer into accepting a different
    standard for product selection (can you imagine if a company tried to
    redefine megahertz?!).

    Some ill will may have been created by a few people, posting under many
    aliases, on rec.photo.digital, who promulgated a tremendous amount of
    mis-information about Foveon and Sigma. But most people realized that
    these individuals were not speaking on behalf of Sigma or Foveon, so
    their actions didn't have a lot of effect (and of course, in the big
    scheme of things, Usenet means nothing). These people were basically
    trying to justify their purchase of a specific product, and got
    extremely upset whenever anyone pointed out any flaws (I'll never
    understand this attitude, yet it certainly is not limited to digital
    cameras). They've disappeared from Usenet for the most part, and we all
    want to believe that they didn't represent the majority of Sigma camera
    owners!

    Personally, I have many excellent photographs in my home that were
    taken with Foveon technology, and they are indistinguishable from 35mm
    (at least to me). But these were all taken with the Foveon studio
    camera, which is a very different animal (and in most cases I don't
    know how much time the photographer spent on post-processing).

    So "hatred" is definitely not the right word. Disappointment that what
    appeared to be a great concept hasn't worken out commercially, at least
    on the high end, is more like it. (you'll probably soon see Foveon
    sensors in a lot of new applications, since they do have some inherent
    advantages).
     
    scharf.steven, Feb 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Because it's crappy technology?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 26, 2005
    #11
  12. I don't have to step in a pile of dog crap to know it's something I
    don't want to do. I guess the Foveon is OK if you like 3.42MP cameras
    with Homer Simpson skin tones.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Foveon has a couple of problems.

    One is that the mathematics of discrete sampling tells us that to correctly
    sample a signal, that signal must be bandlimited. But Foveon tells us the
    Foveon sensor doesn't need an antialiasing filter. This is simply wrong.
    It's a lie.

    The reason Foveon needs it's customers to believe this lie is that with an
    antialiasing filter, the Foveon's resolution would be no better than a Bayer
    camera of the same pixel count. So they leave out the AA filter and hope no
    one's bothered by the aliasing.

    Another problem Foveon has is that Bayer is so good. Bayer gives you full
    color at almost no cost in luminance resolution, and chrominance resolution
    just as good as the human eye (in relative terms relative to the luminance
    resolution provided). So there really isn't very much to be gained by moving
    to a technology that samples all three colors at every point. (Bayer is not
    perfect: Bayer loses resolution or gets noise in badly unbalanced lighting
    or if you take a landscape in B&W with a red filter.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 26, 2005
    #13
  14. What's amazing is that there actually customers that not only believe this
    lie, but that help spread it. It's not like they don't know it's a lie
    either, as it's been pointed out for at least two years, by most
    reviewers.An incorrect image, with artificial "sharpness" in order to make
    the sensor appear to be higher resolution than it really is. I just don't
    get people that believe things that are demonstrably untrue. Then again, I
    think that something like 1/3 of Americans still believe that Iraq was
    linked to 9/11.
    I don't think that anyone expected Bayer to advance so rapidly in terms of
    pixel density and noise. Canon has really done amazing things with their
    CMOS sensors. Everyone remembers when CMOS sensors were looked down on as
    inferior to CCDs.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Feb 26, 2005
    #14
  15. True211

    The PhAnToM Guest

    <snip>

    Thanks, Steve. That is a reasonable answer. When I first came across
    the technology, it seemed like the next big thing. I did not, however,
    follow it from the consumer side, other than to see a whole lot of
    Foveon bashing here in the past. It got to be too much for me to filter
    out the noise to come up with a reasonable conclusion. So here we go
    again... maybe.
     
    The PhAnToM, Feb 26, 2005
    #15
  16. True211

    Chris Brown Guest

    That, and they sharpen it 'till it screams in RAW conversion. They even had
    the "0" setting for sharpness in their raw convertor correspond to a level
    of sharpening that, if applied to an imported raw file in CS, would be
    considered moderately heavy.

    And it has pretty poor colour response as well - the channels have a lot of
    redundnacy in them, in that the green channel, for example, isn't actually
    that fussy about not capturing red and blue as well, so you end up having to
    subtract out weighted versions of each channel from the others. This has
    unpleasant results for the signal/noise ratio (noise stays the same, signal
    gets smaller).
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 26, 2005
    #16
  17. True211

    Larry Guest


    The display page for the new polaroid has a group of photos on it. Look at
    the skin color of the child (with the balloons). Ask yourself if thats the
    way you want people to look in your photos. He looks like he is suffering
    from "terminal Jaundice".

    Probably thats why most of those pictures are OBJECTS instead of PEOPLE.

    That poor rendering of flesh tones is what puts a lot of people "Off" for the
    Foveon, and the denial about it by Foveon proponents is one of the things
    that get people upset at the mention of Foveon.

    Looking at pictures from Foveon sensors is like rubbernecking at a train
    wreck, I keep expecting someone to say "move along, there is nothing here to
    see".
     
    Larry, Feb 26, 2005
    #17
  18. Careful about stepping in that pile of crap since your foot always winds up
    in your mouth.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Feb 26, 2005
    #18
  19. You've obviously never used a Foveon sensor camera or have seen the photos.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Feb 26, 2005
    #19
  20. True211

    JPS Guest

    In message <_3%Td.9$>,
    Every image I've seen from a Sigma DSLR that I've liked has been due to
    the composition, not the technology.

    The green/blue discrimination is poor and hue-noisy , and there is too
    much aliasing when sharp optics are used.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 26, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.